"Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

From those so called proofs where it says "Pray to him and if he doesn't do it, he's not real!" and similar things, that is my answer to that, I will be on the look out for the occasional so called proof that doesn't fall under that type.

Proof 3: Just because older religions might have been like Christianity does not mean that Christianity is also false like those other religions. Also, have you ever considered that some of those other religions whose savior was born on dec 25th, so on and so forth could have been a result of pagans seeing Jesus Christ and interpreting him as a completely different religions savior, or perhaps scholars reading the old manuscripts of the bible came to the conclusion that the prophecies in the bible pointed towards things like a virgin birth, etc. Either way, the fact that other religions might have similar ideas in no way proves that God is imaginary. Just because something isn't behind door number 1 doesn't mean there isn't something behind door number 2, flawed logic honestly.

Proof 4: Science only being able to proceed by not believing in God is false. In fact, the only scientific theories that contradict God are in fact theories, not proven and are riddled with flaws, assumptions and actual anti-proofs. God can work naturally and supernaturally, he can heal somebody through a natural process and he can heal them through a supernatural process. However, he would only heal somebody if it was in his will, or in his plan to heal them. If that person was destined to die then, they would die.

Proof 5: I scrolled through the points till I hit this; If you are a scientist it is even worse, and it starts with the very first line:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...

That's not true. In the beginning a natural event created the universe as we know it, and the earth did not form until billions of years later. The creation story in Genesis is completely wrong.

The big bang theory is in fact a theory and is not proven, if you are going to try and disprove God, do not try and do it with theories that have not been proven.

Second off, there was controversy in this proof about things such as slavery, sexism and the such. All of those things existed in the old testament, and since then Christ has told us that those are not our current ways, that we shall not live by those laws any longer. I read a story about a muslim girl who was raped and sent to prison because of it, and yet I see people (perhaps the same that think the sexism in the bible is wrong) say that it is alright because that is how their society functions. That is how the Israelite society functioned, slavery back then was nothing like slavery was in the early days of America, slaves were hired servants, who chose to serve their master so they could have room and board, not people forced to do work. The part about beating slaves is an extreme version of spanking children, slaves were life bound to their master, it would be better for the slave to be beaten for doing something wrong than them to be disowned by their master.

Proof 4: Science only being able to proceed by not believing in God is false. In fact, the only scientific theories that contradict God are in fact theories, not proven and are riddled with flaws, assumptions and actual anti-proofs.

Could you provide one of those theories that you think contradict your god, and how it is not proven and riddled with flaws? Also, what is your definition of an "anti-proof"?

Quote

God can work naturally and supernaturally, he can heal somebody through a natural process and he can heal them through a supernatural process. However, he would only heal somebody if it was in his will, or in his plan to heal them. If that person was destined to die then, they would die.

If your god really acts this way, then he is indistinguishable from natural processes, undetectable and irrelevant to any explanation of how the world works.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

"16 Come and listen, all you who fear God; let me tell you what he has done for me. 17 I cried out to him with my mouth; his praise was on my tongue. 18 If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened;"

Once again, believers do not "sin" (or at least are forgiven for such indiscretions, per the Bible itself).

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

So... what? All believers are abusers?On an unrelated note: This is probably the first verse I've seen that actually speaks about protecting women.

"5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord."

Ah, the "OneTrueChristianTM" thing... Well, if there are no true believers (like those who let their children die of treatable and sometimes curable illnesses rather than taking them to doctors), then prayers don't get answered. Good to know.

Proof 4: Science only being able to proceed by not believing in God is false. In fact, the only scientific theories that contradict God are in fact theories, not proven and are riddled with flaws, assumptions and actual anti-proofs.

Could you provide one of those theories that you think contradict your god, and how it is not proven and riddled with flaws? Also, what is your definition of an "anti-proof"?

Quote

God can work naturally and supernaturally, he can heal somebody through a natural process and he can heal them through a supernatural process. However, he would only heal somebody if it was in his will, or in his plan to heal them. If that person was destined to die then, they would die.

If your god really acts this way, then he is indistinguishable from natural processes, undetectable and irrelevant to any explanation of how the world works.

Evolution is a common choice, almost always coupled with the big bang theory. Humans evolving from animals is not the way God made us, so it contradicts the bible. As for the flaws it is riddled with, the big bang must have come from something, it is the only natural explanation, that there had to be something that caused it, it couldn't come from nothing, and if scientists say that a quark or whatever existed that caused the big bang, you would then have to explain where the quark came from. You would either have to come to the conclusion that matter always existed, which is naturally impossible or you would have to say that matter came from nothing, which is also naturally impossible. Next we come to the lack of transitional forms in the fossil records (as I am discussing in another thread), the amount of fossils in the record and the fact that almost 0 so called transitional form fossils exist makes the idea, that those transitional forms never existed, not only plausible but extremely likely.

Anti-proof as in a proof against the theory in the form of proof for the theory that isn't actually proven.

Perhaps you are right, we probably don't have a way to distinguish between being cured because of a natural process and being cured because of God using a natural process, but then you come back to the original statement, and it turns out that according to that, science isn't being hindered by the possibility that God could have done it at all. Both sides of the argument, mine and yours would be irrelevant, just like the original question.

"16 Come and listen, all you who fear God; let me tell you what he has done for me. 17 I cried out to him with my mouth; his praise was on my tongue. 18 If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened;"

Once again, believers do not "sin" (or at least are forgiven for such indiscretions, per the Bible itself).

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

So... what? All believers are abusers?On an unrelated note: This is probably the first verse I've seen that actually speaks about protecting women.

"5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord."

Ah, the "OneTrueChristianTM" thing... Well, if there are no true believers (like those who let their children die of treatable and sometimes curable illnesses rather than taking them to doctors), then prayers don't get answered. Good to know.

Never has anyone in the world said that just because they listen means that they will do exactly what you say, God works the same way.

In my name is the key. If you are coming to test him, and are not asking for something in his name, he says he will not do it. Asking for a million dollars is usually not asking him in his name, AKA: for his will.

It doesn't say that at all. It says that the Lord would not listen to prayer if the person praying not only has sinned, but idolizes the sin. The writer of this passage was not cherishing his sin, you have to look at all the words.

See above response. Turning a deaf ear to the law first off doesn't mean that he isn't breaking the laws, but that he doesn't care what the laws say, that he is breaking the laws gladly and without remorse.

This verse is more specific than I would have liked, but it comes back to sin hindering your prayers, coming back to the cherishing sin part like above.

Approaching God's throne of grace means to pray for grace. Not literally going up to heaven to ask for grace.

There are true believers, I don't see why you are hard pressed to believe that the only people that believe their prayers will be answered are the people letting their children die to treatable diseases. You are twisting the verses to say things they do not say, this verse says that if you pray for something, but don't believe God will do it, you either lack faith in God or you know what you are asking is wrong, and it will not be answered.

In my name is the key. If you are coming to test him, and are not asking for something in his name, he says he will not do it. Asking for a million dollars is usually not asking him in his name, AKA: for his will.

So prayer will NEVER work. Gotcha.This makes your god the equivalent of a stubborn old man who demands that everything be done his way and will not listen to anyone who tells him otherwise.

It doesn't say that at all. It says that the Lord would not listen to prayer if the person praying not only has sinned, but idolizes the sin. The writer of this passage was not cherishing his sin, you have to look at all the words.

If the writer was not cherishing sin, and your god listens to prayers of those who do not cherish sin, why are no prayers answered?

See above response. Turning a deaf ear to the law first off doesn't mean that he isn't breaking the laws, but that he doesn't care what the laws say, that he is breaking the laws gladly and without remorse.

There are true believers, I don't see why you are hard pressed to believe that the only people that believe their prayers will be answered are the people letting their children die to treatable diseases.

It was the best example I could think of. I also only wrote about it once (in this thread). I don't see why you think that I'm "hard pressed" in believing that those are the only true believers.

You are twisting the verses to say things they do not say, this verse says that if you pray for something, but don't believe God will do it, you either lack faith in God or you know what you are asking is wrong, and it will not be answered.

In my name is the key. If you are coming to test him, and are not asking for something in his name, he says he will not do it. Asking for a million dollars is usually not asking him in his name, AKA: for his will.

So prayer will NEVER work. Gotcha.This makes your god the equivalent of a stubborn old man who demands that everything be done his way and will not listen to anyone who tells him otherwise.

It doesn't say that at all. It says that the Lord would not listen to prayer if the person praying not only has sinned, but idolizes the sin. The writer of this passage was not cherishing his sin, you have to look at all the words.

If the writer was not cherishing sin, and your god listens to prayers of those who do not cherish sin, why are no prayers answered?

See above response. Turning a deaf ear to the law first off doesn't mean that he isn't breaking the laws, but that he doesn't care what the laws say, that he is breaking the laws gladly and without remorse.

There are true believers, I don't see why you are hard pressed to believe that the only people that believe their prayers will be answered are the people letting their children die to treatable diseases.

It was the best example I could think of. I also only wrote about it once (in this thread). I don't see why you think that I'm "hard pressed" in believing that those are the only true believers.

You are twisting the verses to say things they do not say, this verse says that if you pray for something, but don't believe God will do it, you either lack faith in God or you know what you are asking is wrong, and it will not be answered.

See everything above.

As a response to things such as "Nobody has received grace" and "No prayers have been answered", people have received grace and prayers have been answered, you just haven't seen it. Saying that they just haven't is just a respectful way of covering your ears and going lalalalalala. Once again, the original intent of this thread was to make sure you know that it is biblical not to test God, defiantly doing a study to see if prayer actually works will not work of course, examples such as "20 prayer, only 1 is saved." has nothing to do with which prayers God answers, you can not measure Gods will and his power with math.

As for "But your god promises to do what he is asked to. So either he's a liar or he doesn't exist." Once again, multiple verses for this that I gave before, if you are going to believe that my God exists, you must also accept our beliefs about him, and that is that he knows what is best for everyone, and that does indeed have a will that is not only best for you, but best for everyone else as well. Praying for something against God's will will not result in you gaining what you prayed for. Once again, you can not measure his will with math and the limits of our own minds.

Once again, the original intent of this thread was to make sure you know that it is biblical not to test God, defiantly doing a study to see if prayer actually works will not work of course, examples such as "20 prayer, only 1 is saved." has nothing to do with which prayers God answers, you can not measure Gods will and his power with math.

If your god is not bound by the laws of the universe, then he cannot be within the universe and therefore cannot interfere with it.

Once again, the original intent of this thread was to make sure you know that it is biblical not to test God, defiantly doing a study to see if prayer actually works will not work of course, examples such as "20 prayer, only 1 is saved." has nothing to do with which prayers God answers, you can not measure Gods will and his power with math.

If your god is not bound by the laws of the universe, then he cannot be within the universe and therefore cannot interfere with it.

Once again, you can not measure his will with math and the limits of our own minds.

See above about the laws of the universe.

But you have, right? Your god thinks you're so special that it only reveals itself to you and in ways that are indistinguishable from natural causes. It's almost like... he doesn't exist!-Perhaps I have, perhaps I haven't. I for one think that I have. Your black and white idea of either seeing it as clear as day and not seeing it at all is to close minded. We are talking about a religion here, not all of it is natural, so you have to bear in mind with me that when talking about these kinds of things, not everything has to have a repeatable or observable proof. I do believe Christians can see the work of God, not all of which are indistinguishable from natural causes, however if something like that did happen you probably wouldn't believe it anyway.

No, it's a truthful way of saying "No prayers have been answered".-Was it you who mentioned Russel's teapot earlier in the other thread? You have no way of proving to me that no prayers have been answered, and I have no way of showing you that they have been, at least ones that you would believe.

If your god is not bound by the laws of the universe, then he cannot be within the universe and therefore cannot interfere with it.-Supernatural, as in not bound by our laws, your very reasoning for him to not be able to interfere could be considered one of those laws. How on earth would you come to a conclusion like that anyway?

It's a faulty assumption for the sake of argument. Theists are too arrogant and close minded to consider that they're wrong, so the atheists must be the ones to do so.-When I attempt to argue against evolution (however terrible at it I might be), I don't say "That isn't true because God did it this way", I try and bear in mind that when dealing with the theory of evolution, I have to believe that the entire theory is true. likewise, if you are to be convinced of something like you, you can't go in with the standpoint of thinking that it isn't real no matter what I say.

I must accept that you believe it, and then I disprove them.-Actually you haven't disproved him at all. Most of the things you are saying are downright wrong according to the bible and what it says about how God would act in a certain situation. Once again, you can't define supernatural with natural laws, by definition.

"Mysterious ways". The most pathetic cop-out ever invented by theism.-Why do you choose to believe it is a cop-out? Once again, when we are dealing within the realm of "Why did God do X" you have to believe everything else about the theory/religion first.

Like I said - if this is true, then prayer will never work.-Only by your definition that God doesn't have a will, you are basing your assumptions about God off of your other assumptions about him.

"Mysterious ways". The most pathetic cop-out ever invented by theism.-Why do you choose to believe it is a cop-out? Once again, when we are dealing within the realm of "Why did God do X" you have to believe everything else about the theory/religion first.[/quote]

It's a cop-out because it's used selectively. In one breath, the theist will claim that X, Y and Z are true about God's abilities, its wishes, its values, its plans, etc.

But then when pressed on any of those points, the theist reverts to "God works in mysterious ways". To which my response is something alon the lines of "Well, they weren't so mysterious when you were pretending to understand stuff about the god a moment ago!"

Used in another context: President Obama decides to doggedly push through a piece of policy[1] that he claims will eliminate poverty in America while strengthening civil liberties and keeping the nation secure from all outside threats. Understandably, skeptics ask for a copy of the plan, or at least an explanation of how it's going to work. Suddenly, Obama is all vague. His spokesman will only say, "The President's plans work in mysterious ways."

Obviously there are differences between the situations, but do you understand now where the "cop-out" accusation comes from?

The Bible says "beware of false prophets" and something about the "real" prophets being able to do greater things than Jesus himself. So, can you raise the dead? Walk on water? This is en par with Jesus, not greater.

Your black and white idea of either seeing it as clear as day and not seeing it at all is to close minded.

You either know something or you don't. There is no inbetween. For example, you either know that the Bible is false or you don't. Those who say "I know that parts of it aren't true" are saying that it's false, even if they don't realize it.

We are talking about a religion here, not all of it is natural, so you have to bear in mind with me that when talking about these kinds of things, not everything has to have a repeatable or observable proof.

If your god had done the impossible even ONCE and showed that it was he that had done it, there wouldn't be an atheist on Earth.

When I attempt to argue against evolution (however terrible at it I might be), I don't say "That isn't true because God did it this way", I try and bear in mind that when dealing with the theory of evolution, I have to believe that the entire theory is true. likewise, if you are to be convinced of something like you, you can't go in with the standpoint of thinking that it isn't real no matter what I say.

Actually that's exactly what you've been doing - you've assumed the Bible to be true and say that evolution[1] isn't true because it contradicts the Bible.

Actually you haven't disproved him at all. Most of the things you are saying are downright wrong according to the bible and what it says about how God would act in a certain situation. Once again, you can't define supernatural with natural laws, by definition.

Why do you choose to believe it is a cop-out? Once again, when we are dealing within the realm of "Why did God do X" you have to believe everything else about the theory/religion first.

There are over 40,000 denominations of christianity alone, each with its own version and interpretation of the Bible. But you're the one who got it right. Among the thousands of religions and the tens of thousands of denominations, you got it 100% right.And mysterious ways IS a cop-out. It's saying "I don't know why this happened, since it contradicts everything in the Bible, so GAWD did it for a reason that I can't understand", rather than consider "I don't know why this happened, since it contradicts everything in the Bible, so it's possible that the Bible is simply a work of fiction".

Only by your definition that God doesn't have a will, you are basing your assumptions about God off of your other assumptions about him.

No, by your definition prayer never works, because your god won't let it work. Rather than use his omniscience and omnipotence to make everything good 100% of the time, it says "Fuck you, mortals. My plan is better than the fact that over two thirds of you will burn in hell for eternity".

"Mysterious ways". The most pathetic cop-out ever invented by theism.-Why do you choose to believe it is a cop-out? Once again, when we are dealing within the realm of "Why did God do X" you have to believe everything else about the theory/religion first.

It's a cop-out because it's used selectively. In one breath, the theist will claim that X, Y and Z are true about God's abilities, its wishes, its values, its plans, etc.

But then when pressed on any of those points, the theist reverts to "God works in mysterious ways". To which my response is something alon the lines of "Well, they weren't so mysterious when you were pretending to understand stuff about the god a moment ago!"

Used in another context: President Obama decides to doggedly push through a piece of policy[1] that he claims will eliminate poverty in America while strengthening civil liberties and keeping the nation secure from all outside threats. Understandably, skeptics ask for a copy of the plan, or at least an explanation of how it's going to work. Suddenly, Obama is all vague. His spokesman will only say, "The President's plans work in mysterious ways."

Obviously there are differences between the situations, but do you understand now where the "cop-out" accusation comes from?[/quote]It is believed that God's will is to save as many souls as possible. Sometimes a tragic accident might happen that would cause somebody to lose a limb or a child, etc. However, that situation might later lead them to either become saved or to be a better witness to others. Since it is in the spirit of the name of the site, there is a movie called soul surfer where a girls arm was bitten off by a shark, making her an amputee. Since then she has gained fame for being a professional surfer with only one arm, she used her fame to witness to hundreds or thousands of people. That is an example of "God works in mysterious ways." of course whether you buy it or not depends on your ability to be open minded.

It is believed that God's will is to save as many souls as possible. Sometimes a tragic accident might happen that would cause somebody to lose a limb or a child, etc. However, that situation might later lead them to either become saved or to be a better witness to others. Since it is in the spirit of the name of the site, there is a movie called soul surfer where a girls arm was bitten off by a shark, making her an amputee. Since then she has gained fame for being a professional surfer with only one arm, she used her fame to witness to hundreds or thousands of people. That is an example of "God works in mysterious ways." of course whether you buy it or not depends on your ability to be open minded.

It is an example of "I don't actually know what I said I knew a moment ago, so I'm backing off of that, but in a way that lets me look like I'm not". Or, "I can't explain that, but rather than honestly re-evaluate my position, I'm going to close my mind to the idea I might be wrong".

"God works in mysterious ways" is the very mantra of closed-mindedness.

To clarify: "God works in mysterious ways" is just a re-assertion of the believer's faith.

Faith that something is true, is inherently closed-minded. If someone is open to correction on a point, then (s)he does not have faith that (s)he is correct. Instead, his or her belief that (s)he's right is contingent upon evidence. If someone is determined to hold to a position regardless of other influences, then that person has faith, and is closed-minded.

EDIT: There are other senses of the word "faith", of course. It's a notoriously slippery word. In this case, I use "faith" to mean "belief regardless of evidence or lack thereof".

The Bible says "beware of false prophets" and something about the "real" prophets being able to do greater things than Jesus himself. So, can you raise the dead? Walk on water? This is en par with Jesus, not greater.

Your black and white idea of either seeing it as clear as day and not seeing it at all is to close minded.

You either know something or you don't. There is no inbetween. For example, you either know that the Bible is false or you don't. Those who say "I know that parts of it aren't true" are saying that it's false, even if they don't realize it.

We are talking about a religion here, not all of it is natural, so you have to bear in mind with me that when talking about these kinds of things, not everything has to have a repeatable or observable proof.

If your god had done the impossible even ONCE and showed that it was he that had done it, there wouldn't be an atheist on Earth.

When I attempt to argue against evolution (however terrible at it I might be), I don't say "That isn't true because God did it this way", I try and bear in mind that when dealing with the theory of evolution, I have to believe that the entire theory is true. likewise, if you are to be convinced of something like you, you can't go in with the standpoint of thinking that it isn't real no matter what I say.

Actually that's exactly what you've been doing - you've assumed the Bible to be true and say that evolution[1] isn't true because it contradicts the Bible.

Actually you haven't disproved him at all. Most of the things you are saying are downright wrong according to the bible and what it says about how God would act in a certain situation. Once again, you can't define supernatural with natural laws, by definition.

Why do you choose to believe it is a cop-out? Once again, when we are dealing within the realm of "Why did God do X" you have to believe everything else about the theory/religion first.

There are over 40,000 denominations of christianity alone, each with its own version and interpretation of the Bible. But you're the one who got it right. Among the thousands of religions and the tens of thousands of denominations, you got it 100% right.And mysterious ways IS a cop-out. It's saying "I don't know why this happened, since it contradicts everything in the Bible, so GAWD did it for a reason that I can't understand", rather than consider "I don't know why this happened, since it contradicts everything in the Bible, so it's possible that the Bible is simply a work of fiction".

Only by your definition that God doesn't have a will, you are basing your assumptions about God off of your other assumptions about him.

No, by your definition prayer never works, because your god won't let it work. Rather than use his omniscience and omnipotence to make everything good 100% of the time, it says "Fuck you, mortals. My plan is better than the fact that over two thirds of you will burn in hell for eternity".

The SCIENTIFIC theory; see the difference between "theory" and scientific theory.

I think you have come to the point of trolling now, honestly I know 12 year olds that could point out your false presumptions about what it says in the bible.

The Bible says "beware of false prophets" and something about the "real" prophets being able to do greater things than Jesus himself. So, can you raise the dead? Walk on water? This is en par with Jesus, not greater.-Seeing God's hand at work =/= raising someone from the dead.

You either know something or you don't. There is no inbetween. For example, you either know that the Bible is false or you don't. Those who say "I know that parts of it aren't true" are saying that it's false, even if they don't realize it.-I wasn't even talking about that, you completely diverted onto another subject. The human mind if flawed, especially when it comes to supernatural. All I am saying is that some will claim to see it when they haven't and that some will claim to not have seen it when they have. Whether or not they have or haven't is always black and white, the part about them being unsure about whether they have or have not is the shade of gray when it comes to our own minds comprehension.

If your god had done the impossible even ONCE and showed that it was he that had done it, there wouldn't be an atheist on Earth.-He did, he fed the five thousand in front of 5000 people (alongside many other miracles). They even recorded it in a book, of course, you don't believe he did that because it was supernatural, therefore couldn't have happened.

Try me.And, in fact, I can show you that no prayer have been answered. See above.-What if I pray to not die in my sleep? Would that be an answer to prayer if I didn't? What about praying for your child to be cured of a disease? Would that be an answer to prayer if they were indeed cured? Once again, you can't prove that they haven't been answered prayers.

Actually that's exactly what you've been doing - you've assumed the Bible to be true and say that evolution[2] isn't true because it contradicts the Bible.-Bring up my faulty arguments against evolution if you want, but not at one point did I say "Evolution isn't true because it's not in the bible.", I did state that they contradicted them-self, but that was only as a response to another poster asking for a contradiction.

If your deity is supernatural, then it is imaginary. Plain and simple. There's a reason why we call it "impossible".-This statement makes no sense, once again, we are dealing within the realm of God existing and I am giving answers as to why God would do some things. If God created man, then God can't be proven to be not real by mans laws. Supernatural =/= imaginary.

And yet here you are, defining the supernatural using natural laws.-Example?

There are over 40,000 denominations of christianity alone, each with its own version and interpretation of the Bible. But you're the one who got it right. Among the thousands of religions and the tens of thousands of denominations, you got it 100% right.And mysterious ways IS a cop-out. It's saying "I don't know why this happened, since it contradicts everything in the Bible, so GAWD did it for a reason that I can't understand", rather than consider "I don't know why this happened, since it contradicts everything in the Bible, so it's possible that the Bible is simply a work of fiction".-I'm not saying I have it completely right, the many denominations of Christianity are very similar. The different interpretations are not different enough to fundamentally change the laws of the bible, if one denomination goes far enough to say Jesus didn't exist, they probably don't have it right, if they are following the bible. You should try to grasp the concept that not everything in this world can be solved by human reason and logic, that is another key building block of the christian faith. You argue that not everything that happens is caused by God yet you also argue that all of these things that happen that go against God are caused by him. I can assure that, that as far as my religion goes, God wouldn't do something to that contradicts what it says in the bible. There if no proof that God has ever done anything that contradicts the bible. Assuming everything that goes against the bible is a work of God and at the same time assuming every prayer of asking God to cure a disease is not because of God is just fallacious, your own proofs against the bible contradict themselves.

To clarify: "God works in mysterious ways" is just a re-assertion of the believer's faith.

Faith that something is true, is inherently closed-minded. If someone is open to correction on a point, then (s)he does not have faith that (s)he is correct. Instead, his or her belief that (s)he's right is contingent upon evidence. If someone is determined to hold to a position regardless of other influences, then that person has faith, and is closed-minded.

EDIT: There are other senses of the word "faith", of course. It's a notoriously slippery word. In this case, I use "faith" to mean "belief regardless of evidence or lack thereof".

Faith could also be used to describe believing in the big bang theory. Does it have a naturally possible explanation yet? I am sure someone has written something somewhere on the internet that makes some lick of sense out of something coming from nothing in a natural way.

"Something coming from nothing" is not an accurate description of the BBT. But if it were, then faith in it would be closed-minded. Curiously, though, it is an accurate description of what your deity supposedly did: Create something from nothing. You're the one who believes in that. Not the naturalists.

You agree, anyway, that faith is inherently closed-minded. That's good.

You don't say? If you are the one who's getting it right and everyone else is getting it wrong, then you must be a prophet. If you are a prophet, then you must be able to do things better than what Jesus did. Do it, or you will prove that you are, in fact, a false prophet.

He did, he fed the five thousand in front of 5000 people (alongside many other miracles). They even recorded it in a book, of course, you don't believe he did that because it was supernatural, therefore couldn't have happened.

OMG, YOU'RE RIGHT! THE QUR'AN CLEARLY DESCRIBES ALLAH'S MIRACLES! ALLAH BE PRAISED!Is my response. Prove that your book is better than the Qur'an or start worshiping Allah. And Odin. And Thor. And Zeus. And Zao Shen. And (...)

Bring up my faulty arguments against evolution if you want, but not at one point did I say "Evolution isn't true because it's not in the bible.", I did state that they contradicted them-self, but that was only as a response to another poster asking for a contradiction.

This statement makes no sense, once again, we are dealing within the realm of God existing and I am giving answers as to why God would do some things. If God created man, then God can't be proven to be not real by mans laws. Supernatural =/= imaginary.

Supernatural=Imaginary.Fixed.Let me get this straight - lack of evidence is evidence?

If your god is not bound by the laws of the universe, then he cannot be within the universe and therefore cannot interfere with it.-Jesus was sent down to the world to live in it, according to the bible, Jesus is part of the holy trinity that makes up God.John 3:17, Jesus is sent into the world.

And yet your mind seems to be perfectly in tune with the supernatural! So, heal the sick, walk on water whilst turning it into wine and show us your power, oh mighty prophet.-No, this is where I say "God works in mysterious ways.", which you also seem to say isn't real, perhaps this is your get out of jail free card?

Let me translate this:Some will be idiots and think that an event is supernatural while others will realize that the supernatural is most likely bogus and find a logical explanation for the event.-More like, once again, the human mind is flawed. Some people will indeed be idiots though and try to make something seem like God's will that is not. Of course man is not perfect, even the men that serve God.

You either see something or you don't. There is no inbet-Seriously? Do you ACTUALLY believe this nonsense?-Shade of gray in their own mind as in they don't know if they did see God's will or not. I already said that if they see it then they see it and if they don't then they don't. Once again, the shade of gray happens when those that have seen it don't think that have seen it and those that haven't seen it think that they did.

Not with such lame examples. If all your god is capable of doing are natural events, then it is pathetically powerless.-Yet you refuse to believe that something supernatural can happen, that if God was to cure somebody of a disease that it would have to be by natural process because if it wasn't then scientists would hindered in their studies or whatever. God did supernatural things, you can read about it in the bible, unless you choose not to believe it of course by all means.

Supernatural=Imaginary.Fixed.Let me get this straight - lack of evidence is evidence?-I never said it was, you are once again twisting my words. Supernatural and imaginary are two completely different words, it is close minded to think that something supernatural must be imaginary.

I'm not saying I have it completely right, the many denominations of Christianity are very similar. The different interpretations are not different enough to fundamentally change the laws of the bible, if one denomination goes far enough to say Jesus didn't exist, they probably don't have it right, if they are following the bible.

Wow, ignorance of the various denominations of Christianity. We have Christians who are sure that anyone who isn’t baptized in a certain way will go to hell. We have those who think that God will eventually accept everyone. We have Christians who believe in predestination and those who don’t. We have those who believe that grace is the only way to be saved, and others who say works, and others who say belief. We have some who celebrate the Sabbath on one day and those on another. They all vary on what “commandments” should be followed.

again, a Christians claim is shown to be wrong.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

"Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

Then why bother with him? He... or it... has no more proof than any other religion's deities, so why should I choose it over, say, Shiva; when the two appear equally invalid?

Quote

Proof 3: Just because older religions might have been like Christianity does not mean that Christianity is also false like those other religions.

It does, however, increase the probability that Christianity is merely plagiarized from those older religions.

Quote

Also, have you ever considered that some of those other religions whose savior was born on dec 25th, so on and so forth could have been a result of pagans seeing Jesus Christ and interpreting him as a completely different religions savior, or perhaps scholars reading the old manuscripts of the bible came to the conclusion that the prophecies in the bible pointed towards things like a virgin birth, etc.

Have you considered that many of the religions that had a savior born on Dec 25th had that myth long before your supposed savior could have been born (a mere two millenia ago)?

Quote

Proof 4: Science only being able to proceed by not believing in God is false. In fact, the only scientific theories that contradict God are in fact theories, not proven and are riddled with flaws, assumptions and actual anti-proofs.[...]The big bang theory is in fact a theory and is not proven, if you are going to try and disprove God, do not try and do it with theories that have not been proven.

All you demonstrate here is that you do not understand what a scientific theory is, so I hope you will allow me to explain it a little.

A scientific theory requires quite a bit of proof before it can reach a theory- it must also have an underlying fact. A theory is best thought of as the explanation for how the fact works.

Gravity is both a theory and a fact, or more accurately, gravity has both a theory and a fact. That masses attract one another is undeniable - thus gravity is a fact. However, there is still much we do not understand about how it works. The theory is the body of work and explanations we have built up over the years to explain the how. A theory can change as new information comes about, but as a general rule the theory always gets better at explaining the 'why' and the 'how' of the fact.

When we talk about the "Theory of Gravity" no one in their right mind would try to say "Gravity is only a theory", but they do when it comes to a much better supported theory: The Theory of Evolution. I don't say "better supported" because more people like it, but because it has more evidence and more explanatory power than the ToG[1]. Also, like the ToG, the ToE[2] has an underlying fact that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Over the course of many generations, it is an accepted fact that living organisms change in ever-increasing ways.

Evolution is a common choice, almost always coupled with the big bang theory.

First off, I would like to congratulate you on understanding that the Big Bang Theory and the ToE, while often linked, are not the same thing. It is rare to find a theist who can make the distinction (even after pointedly being informed of it).

Quote

As for the flaws it is riddled with, the big bang must have come from something, it is the only natural explanation, that there had to be something that caused it, it couldn't come from nothing, and if scientists say that a quark or whatever existed that caused the big bang, you would then have to explain where the quark came from. You would either have to come to the conclusion that matter always existed, which is naturally impossible or you would have to say that matter came from nothing, which is also naturally impossible.

You make two assertions here:1. Matter having always existed is naturally impossible2. Matter coming from nothing is naturally impossible

Can you prove both of these assertions?

You make a few others as well, like "The Big Bang must have a cause", but I'm more concerned with these two for now. As for "explaining where the quark came from", I can tell you that if we find everything came from a quark, explaining where the quark came from would in fact be the next objective. We have not getten there yet, so we'll hold off on postulating where it came from.

Quote

Next we come to the lack of transitional forms in the fossil records (as I am discussing in another thread), the amount of fossils in the record and the fact that almost 0 so called transitional form fossils exist makes the idea, that those transitional forms never existed, not only plausible but extremely likely.

I always find this argument entertaining - mainly because it is so horribly wrong as to be laughable.

Every single fossil found is a transitional fossil between the one that came before it and the one that came after it.An excellent example comes from this picture (which I've used before, as I rather like it): (source)

We have fossils (or bone structure for the later ones, like the Corvus) for each of these. You can google them yourself to find them, and I encourage you to do so. The fossil of the Velociraptor is a transitional fossil between Sinosauropteryx and Unenlagia. Unenlagia is a transitional fossil between the Velociraptor and Caudipteryx. Caudipteryx is a transitional fossil between Unenlagia and Protarchaeopteryx... scientists need to come up with shorter names for dead things... but you should see my point by now. To say we have no transitional fossils is not just a bad misrepresentation, but practically insulting to all the work that has gone into uncovering these bits of the past.

Sorry, I came into the thread a bit late and saw most of the arguments were biblical in nature, but I wanted to address these and may have skipped over something. Apologies if I hit something that was already covered.

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

The part about beating slaves is an extreme version of spanking children...

And this, ladies and gentlefolk, is one of the reasons Christianity should be reviled.

Fucking disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Though it's always entertaining watching a desperate Christian try to hand wave away something like *SLAVERY*.

"Oh, it's all good! At least they had homes and got fed! How great is THAT!? "

That's some lunatic fringe shit right there. Come on big boy, why don't you justify genocide next? Or maybe child molestation? (Mary would have been about 11 or 12 years old when she married Joseph)... Or claiming virgins as spoils of war?

"Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

From those so called proofs where it says "Pray to him and if he doesn't do it, he's not real!" and similar things, that is my answer to that, I will be on the look out for the occasional so called proof that doesn't fall under that type.

Proof 3: Just because older religions might have been like Christianity does not mean that Christianity is also false like those other religions. Also, have you ever considered that some of those other religions whose savior was born on dec 25th, so on and so forth could have been a result of pagans seeing Jesus Christ and interpreting him as a completely different religions savior, or perhaps scholars reading the old manuscripts of the bible came to the conclusion that the prophecies in the bible pointed towards things like a virgin birth, etc. Either way, the fact that other religions might have similar ideas in no way proves that God is imaginary. Just because something isn't behind door number 1 doesn't mean there isn't something behind door number 2, flawed logic honestly.

Proof 4: Science only being able to proceed by not believing in God is false. In fact, the only scientific theories that contradict God are in fact theories, not proven and are riddled with flaws, assumptions and actual anti-proofs. God can work naturally and supernaturally, he can heal somebody through a natural process and he can heal them through a supernatural process. However, he would only heal somebody if it was in his will, or in his plan to heal them. If that person was destined to die then, they would die.

Proof 5: I scrolled through the points till I hit this; If you are a scientist it is even worse, and it starts with the very first line:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...

That's not true. In the beginning a natural event created the universe as we know it, and the earth did not form until billions of years later. The creation story in Genesis is completely wrong.

The big bang theory is in fact a theory and is not proven, if you are going to try and disprove God, do not try and do it with theories that have not been proven.

Second off, there was controversy in this proof about things such as slavery, sexism and the such. All of those things existed in the old testament, and since then Christ has told us that those are not our current ways, that we shall not live by those laws any longer. I read a story about a muslim girl who was raped and sent to prison because of it, and yet I see people (perhaps the same that think the sexism in the bible is wrong) say that it is alright because that is how their society functions. That is how the Israelite society functioned, slavery back then was nothing like slavery was in the early days of America, slaves were hired servants, who chose to serve their master so they could have room and board, not people forced to do work. The part about beating slaves is an extreme version of spanking children, slaves were life bound to their master, it would be better for the slave to be beaten for doing something wrong than them to be disowned by their master.

Someone who makes sense on here

All those "proofs" are and can never be 100% factual proofs.

Atheist are more stubborn than evangelical Christians now.

I agree soooo many things are wrong with the way Christianity is taught today and there are contradictions in the Bible, but none of that disproves God's existence. One needs to know 100% about everything in this entire universe to come to the accurate conclusion that God does not exist.

Why don't people bash or talk about Islam, Hinduism, Krnsa or other beliefs? You grew up in a Christian society or your parents wanted you to believe the Bible and then you rejected it. Ok, good, keep going, stop bashing Christians and their beliefs and move on to higher thinking?

I like the Atheist who will admit that their is not enough empirical evidence to prove the existence of God. Big difference from believing and claiming there is no God.